dev/core#3939 Fix import mandatory field validation regression

[eileenmcnaughton]

Overview

Fix import mandatory field validation regression

Before

Despite email being a valid match it does not pass the mandatory field validation rule

After

The mapping above passes validation

Technical Details

We are now using apiv4 under the hood. The api v4 field name is email_primary.email - but presenting that field name in the import mapping ui causes a js error due to the . having another meaning in js. The work around is to replace it at the js layer with __ & swap it back in the form layer to process normally. (The angular layer just uses the 'right' name).

However, it seems this handling was missing in the validate function so I have added there

Comments

@seamuslee001 this should be an easy merge - I have UI-tested against 5.55 rc & added unit test

5.54 affect as issue was reported against it - #24839
https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/3939

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If this is your first pull-request for CiviCRM, please browse CONTRIBUTING.md for information about the development and testing processes.
• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[eileenmcnaughton]

test this please

[Detsieber]

@eileenmcnaughton thank you for this fix! Importing works well now.

However, one minor thing from the issue is still open:

Also, if we select email and check "update this field mapping", the field "email" won't be saved anymore.

If I select email in the field mapping and try to save it (either by updating an existing import field mapping or create a new one) the email field is not saved within the mapping.

This is a minor issue which is not necessarily a blocker, but it would be nice to get this one fixed as well.

[eileenmcnaughton]

@colemanw @seamuslee001 see above - @Detsieber has tested - can someone merge?

@Detsieber can you create a new gitlab issue for the outstanding part? Then we can close the main issue without losing that

[eileenmcnaughton]

Actually I put something up for the second part - so if we merge that don't need a new ticket #24871

[Detsieber]

Thanks a lot @eileenmcnaughton , I have tested this and also works well!